7 1/2 years

[Sandina]

TO ALL MY FRIENDS....LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE...FYI only. DO you recall your basic Civic's Class in High School?

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The fi rst six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) Americans were buying new cars,taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...

But Americans wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION
DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as you read this, THE DOW is probing another low~~
7) $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE..AND WE SURE GOT IT! ....


REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.


AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!


JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?

[Ysobelle]

The economy was fine? On what planet!?

[Sandina]

Sales figures where I worked were always up from the year before. People I knew always had a good job & no money problems.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?The real question is, how many more poorly-written ALL-CAPS chain-emails can we stand?

Seriously, if you have an original thought, we'd love to hear it. If all you want to do is post chain-emails, well... at least post the ones where we can get millions of dollars sent to us simply by emailing our social security numbers to Nigeria.

But Americans wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress [...] AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.Unless a party has a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, there's almost nothing that party can do if the other party is united in being dead-set against letting them do it.

I imagine that you've been busy searching through your spam folder looking for things to post here, so I understand that you haven't noticed, but basically, the Republican strategy since 2006 has been to use the available procedural roadblocks to completely obstruct the Congressional Democrats from getting anything accomplished so that come 2008 they can accuse the Democrats of doing nothing during the period of their control.

Most of us saw through that. You didn't, but that's okay. Now you know.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Since the main premise of the spam, that the Democratic control of Congress of the last 2 years is directly responsible for the current problems had been debunked, it's almost pointless to go through the individual claims, but there are a couple that do stand out as being particularly out there and needing addressing...

2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!; Gasoline prices are dropping actually and the average cost is below $3 again. That's another problem with spam emails; unlike their meaty namesakes they have a really short shelf life.

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION
DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as you read this, THE DOW is probing another low~~
7) $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
You do realize that the bulk of the above problems are from policies and legislation that were put into place well before 2006 and that it's only just now that the chickens have come home to roost, don't you?

Most of the current financial crisis is a result of a specific deregulation that allowed bundled packages of mortgages to be traded as securities. Basically, companies were buying and selling other people's debt. This freewheeling market incentiveized companies to aggressively market subprime mortgages to people wo really couldn't afford them, just so they could bundle the debt in with other "good" mortgages and sell the whole kit and kaboodle off at a profit. Meanwhile, other people saw the writing on the wall and started investing heavily in derivitive securities such as Credit Default Swaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap), essentially betting on the housing and mortgate bubbles to burst. There's one guy who, as a direct result of the housing and mortgage markets crashing, made a tremendous amount of money, $800 Million at last count, thanks to Credit Default Swaps. Of course, that $800 million had to come from somewhere, and that's why some banks and insurance companies, like AIG, are failing.

Now, how did all this deregulation come about? Well, it was quietly slipped into a much larger appropriations bill, quite literally under cover of darkness, where it was passed without debate or even notice by the Republican-controlled Congress.

And who was the Senator who slipped in this deregulation legislation? Phil Graham.

If that name sounds familiar, it should. He is now John McCain's senior economic advisor. ::tinfoil:

And if that doesn't scare the hell out of you, then you're probably better off just sticking to spam emails.

[Peaches O Malley]

Hey Bob.. :bow:

[Lady Hefron]

The real question is, how many more poorly-written ALL-CAPS chain-emails can we stand?

Seriously, if you have an original thought, we'd love to hear it. If all you want to do is post chain-emails, well... at least post the ones where we can get millions of dollars sent to us simply by emailing our social security numbers to Nigeria.

Unless a party has a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, there's almost nothing that party can do if the other party is united in being dead-set against letting them do it.

I imagine that you've been busy searching through your spam folder looking for things to post here, so I understand that you haven't noticed, but basically, the Republican strategy since 2006 has been to use the available procedural roadblocks to completely obstruct the Congressional Democrats from getting anything accomplished so that come 2008 they can accuse the Democrats of doing nothing during the period of their control.

Most of us saw through that. You didn't, but that's okay. Now you know.

Points of fact:

1. George Bush has signed everything that has come across his desk.
2. A simple majority is all that is needed to pass a bill in House and Senate.
3. The only time a 2/3 majority is needed is to override a presidential veto.
4. There have not been any Republican filibusters.

Remember your School House Rock...you know "I am a Bill, yes I'm only a Bill".

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Points of fact:

1. George Bush has signed everything that has come across his desk.

This must be some new definition of "fact" with which I'm not familiar.

While it is true that for most of his presidency, GWB did not invoke his veto power, he suddenly became a little more enamored of it sometime in 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#George_W ._Bush).

Coincidence?

(That was a rhetorical question; it's not a coincidence at all. Congress was Georgie-boy's rubber stamp for the first 6 years of his Administration. Not until Congress started thinking for itself did bills start getting vetoed.)

4. There have not been any Republican filibusters.There are many other (less conspicuous) parliamentary procedural methods of obstruction besides filibusters. Secret Holds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_hold), for one.

3. The only time a 2/3 majority is needed is to override a presidential veto. Or to invoke cloture in the Senate. Or to bypass some of the other obstructionist tactics (although as far as I can tell, a Secret Hold is impenetrable).

Remember your School House Rock...you know "I am a Bill, yes I'm only a Bill".Yes, I have it on my iPod actually, so no reminder necessary. Sadly, Schoolhouse Rock had an overly idealized and oversimplified view of the process.

A couple of years back I saw a parody of the "Bill" video that showed how things really get done. I wish I could find it; it was both hilarious and depressing.

[Ysobelle]

A couple of years back I saw a parody of the "Bill" video that showed how things really get done. I wish I could find it; it was both hilarious and depressing.



I think I saw it. Some guy named Sorkin wrote it.

[Lady Hefron]

There are many other (less conspicuous) parliamentary procedural methods of obstruction besides filibusters. Secret Holds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_hold), for one.

Your definition is from Wiki...not a reliable source. As far as I know this is a myth.



Or to invoke cloture in the Senate. Or to bypass some of the other obstructionist tactics.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.
As there hasn't been a filibuster this is a moot point.

Sadly, Schoolhouse Rock had an overly idealized and oversimplified view of the process.

True, but it is still Constitutionally accurate.

Honestly, I'm not campaigning for anyone here. I'm just really bothered by knee jerk reactions one way or another.

I'm praying that people vote in this upcoming election based on careful study of the candidates records and true beliefs, not hype and sound bites.

[Pathos]

I'm praying that people vote in this upcoming election based on careful study of the candidates records and true beliefs, not hype and sound bites.

But what if one candidate is basing his entire campaign on exactly that?

Hype and sound bites.

What else can you expect people to base their vote on?

[surlywench]

But what if one candidate is basing his entire campaign on exactly that?

Hype and sound bites.

What else can you expect people to base their vote on?

Smear campaigns and who looks better on tv?

just sayin....

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Your definition is from Wiki...not a reliable source. As far as I know this is a myth.

How about a cite from a Senator quoted in the congressional record?

http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/congress/2007/holds.html

Will that suffice?

[Phoenix McHeit]

Bob -

While I appreciate and agree with the points you're trying to make, I have to say that the deliberate insults and condescension was rather counter-productive to making those points.

If that heavy-handed stuff had come from the 'other side', there would've been a holy-hell-snarkdown and you know it.

You're better than that, hun.

[devlyn]

In Bob's defense (not that he needs my help) the OP was rather condescending and dumbed down. When you talk generalities, you can always "prove" the other side is wrong. Politics is nuanced and subtle, and most policies take a long time to actually affect things significantly. That doesn't make for good partisan bashing or soundbites though.

I love the holy-hell snarkdown phrase though. :love:

It's rather naive to believe that one party, or the last two years, or a single act is responsible for the current economic crisis. Hell, the "experts" can't even all agree what exactly went wrong.

Most small business owners that I know, have been aware of our recession for over a year now and people have been predicting this crash for about as long. The people in charge ignored it. Why? Who stood to gain the most from this? Follow the money.

Bob -

While I appreciate and agree with the points you're trying to make, I have to say that the deliberate insults and condescension was rather counter-productive to making those points.

If that heavy-handed stuff had come from the 'other side', there would've been a holy-hell-snarkdown and you know it.

You're better than that, hun.

[Lady Hefron]

But what if one candidate is basing his entire campaign on exactly that?

Hype and sound bites.

What else can you expect people to base their vote on?

Research. Use the internet, your local library, etc. The information is out there.

[Lady Hefron]

I'll sum up my opinion. I take my duty as a voter very seriously. I truly believe in what the preamble to the Contitution says,

"We the people..."

The government works for me, not the other way around, although, it may seem that way now. The smaller the government the better.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Bob -

While I appreciate and agree with the points you're trying to make, I have to say that the deliberate insults and condescension was rather counter-productive to making those points.

If that heavy-handed stuff had come from the 'other side', there would've been a holy-hell-snarkdown and you know it.

You're better than that, hun.


To be fair, I'm not being condescending over one's political views, I'm only being condescending over this idea that forwarding and/or posting chain-email spam is somehow a meaningful contribution to intellectual discourse. It's insulting to our intelligence and it doesn't speak very highly of the sender's either.

I'd snark my own mother for passing along nonsense like that.

In fact, I have.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Research. Use the internet, your local library, etc. The information is out there.

Exactly.

One place that the information is not, however, is in some piece of twelve-times forwarded tripe that goes splat into one's email inbox.